Judaism has a long tradition of linking the practice of circumcision with Abraham the patriarch. Indeed, the ancient liturgy recited at a Jewish circumcision ceremony climaxes with the blessing of the mohel, the circumciser, who recites, “Blessed are you, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments, and has commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham, our forefather.” Abraham’s role as witness to every infant boy’s entrance into the covenantal community seems natural; after all, he is the first individual mentioned in the Bible to have circumcised himself (Gen. 17:24), and does so as a sign of his unconditional commitment to God.

In a rather shocking maneuver, however, Genesis Rabbah (“Vayera” 45:8), compiled in the fifth-sixth cent.) derails this image of Abraham: In one midrashic passage, Abraham appears as an uncircumciser. It reads,

Said R Levi, ‘In the age to come Abraham will sit at the gate of Gehenna [hell], and he will not permit a circumcised Israelite to go down there. Then what will he do for those who sinned too much? He will remove the foreskin from infants who died before they were circumcised and will place it over [Israelite sinners] and then lower them into Gehenna.[1]

According to this passage, Abraham keeps vigil over the entrance to hell in order to prevent “real Jews,” that is, circumcised Jews, from entering hell.

This midrash seems closely related to a passage in the Talmud (b. Eruvin 19a). In this passage, the Talmud challenges Resh Lakish’s assertion that Jews never go to Gehenna by referencing a midrashic understanding of Psalms 84:7, which seems to imply that some Jews do go to Gehenna. The Talmud answers the contradiction with the following explanation:

…[The wicked Jews] are at that time under sentence to suffer in Gehenna, but our father Abraham comes, brings them up, and receives them, except such an Israelite as had immoral intercourse with the daughter of an idolater, since his foreskin is drawn and so he cannot be discovered (Sonc. Trans.).

According to this answer, the reason Jews—Jewish men at any rate—don’t go to Gehenna is because Abraham goes down to Gehenna periodically and removes them. However, Jews who try and become gentiles and sleep with gentile women are their own worst enemies. Since these men remove all signs of their Jewishness by uncircumcising themselves (a process called epispasm), father Abraham doesn’t know they are Jewish and, therefore, ends up leaving them to their fate.

Although related in content, the midrash in Genesis Rabbah is more extreme. Abraham does not just accidentally leave certain sinners to their fates, but he himself actively removes the marker of their Jewish identity, thereby essentially expelling them from the covenantal community and condemning them to Gehenna. Abraham achieves this removal by taking the foreskin of uncircumcised infant boys and grafting them onto these Jews, thereby killing two birds with one stone: all those who Abraham refuses to save are no longer circumcised, and the infant boys now are circumcised.

To me, this depiction of our great forefather in zealous, and almost violent, terms, is one of the most astonishing images in midrashic literature. In midrash, Abraham is more typically considered the great missionary, who could reach across the aisle and gently bring gentiles into the loving folds of Jewish faith. In the Bible, he is concerned for all humankind, beseeching God to save the sinful people of Sodom. Here, however, Abraham forcibly throws Jews out of the covenantal community.

We do not know the origin of this midrash and the historical context in which it was written. Yet various ancient sources note traditions where Jews did uncircumcize themselves. This practice is known as epispasm, and is attested to in both Jewish and non-Jewish ancient sources. The first chapter of 1 Maccabees, a Jewish book that became part of the Catholic cannon, notes:

11 In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.” 12 This proposal pleased them, 13 and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. 14 So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, 15 and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil. (NRSV)

As late as the fourth century, the Christian historian Epiphanus mentions epispasm. Even Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:18 tells converted Christians not to “remove the marks of circumcision” (NRSV). It is possible, although far from certain, that this midrash in Genesis Rabbah is rebutting those Jews who are separating themselves from the Jewish community by uncircumcising. To those Jews, perhaps the midrash says, they needn’t bother uncircumcising: Abraham will do it for them.

Abraham as Protector of Pious Jews or Pious Christians?

In the midrash from Genesis Rabbah, Abraham acts as the advocate and protector of righteous Jews, whereas he has no pity whatsoever for sinners, who are thrown out of the covenant. A parallel but reverse depiction of Abraham occurs in Luke, a gospel directed primarily at gentile converts to Christianity, in which he has no mercy for a rich sinful Jew who is tortured in hell, who in his lifetime did not help a poor man named Lazarus. According to Luke 16:24-31,

[The rich man said], “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue…” but Abraham said, “Child, remember that during your lifetime you received good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony…those of us who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.” [The rich man said,] “Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house…that he may warn them…” Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.” (NRSV)

In this passage, Abraham also plays a role as protector of the righteous and the downtrodden, but in this story, circumcision plays no role in differentiating between righteous and unrighteous. There is no clear distinction between Jew and non-Jew; In Luke, Abraham seems to care primarily about charitable behavior and faith.

Whether or not Genesis Rabbah knows the story of Luke 16, it is clear that the author of this midrash does not place good works at the core of one’s religious identity, as it is in Luke, but circumcision. If you are not circumcised, the author implies, you are not a real Jew. This would have been read by Jewish Christians, those many Jews who remained observant but believed in the messianic role of Jesus, and who were being encouraged by Christian leaders to stop circumcising, as a clear demand: You’re either in or you’re out. It’s either Jew or non-Jew, it’s either heaven or hell.

It may be impossible to ascertain the exact historical context of this midrash, but the dichotomy that it presents between those circumcised and uncircumcised is clear. What’s more, Abraham may have been placed in a more fanatical, exclusionary role in this midrash as a response to early Christian appropriations of the figure of Abraham.

The ancient controversy regarding which religion had legitimate claim to Abraham and the midrash about Abraham sitting at the gate of Gehenna [hell] un-circumcising sinful Jews, helps us to understand the final blessing that is made at a brit milah ceremony:

Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who sanctified the beloved one from the womb, set His statute in his flesh, and sealed his descendants with the sign of the holy Covenant. Therefore, as a reward of this (circumcision), the living God, our Portion, our Rock, has ordained that the beloved of our flesh be saved from the abyss, for the sake of the Covenant which He has set in our flesh. Blessed are You Lord, who makes the Covenant.

Our father Abraham is there to save us, but only if we observe his covenant. Sinners who undo their covenant will be overlooked, and sinners who anger the Patriarch will be returned to their state of uncircumcision. In this sense, the brit quite literally cuts both ways.

___________________

Malka Simkovich is a doctoral student at Brandeis University studying Second Temple Judaism, early Rabbinic literature, and early Christian literature. She earned an MA degree in Hebrew Bible from Harvard University and a BA in Bible Studies and Music Theory from Stern College of Yeshiva University. She is currently working on a dissertation regarding universalist Jewish literature that emerged from Egypt under the Roman empire while working as an editorial assistant for the Harvard Theological Review.

I have serious problems with the interpretation(s) offered in this piece and even more with its rhetoric.

1. The main thrust of the passage in Bereshit Rabba, as well as the passage in Bavli Eruvin is that Abraham has the power/desire/function to keep Jews who should be entering Gehenna from indeed entering it. I suspect (those this point cannot be proven – or refuted) that that was all R. Levi’s statement originally claimed. This itself is the most fascinating part of the midrash: Abraham has become not simply a lover of his fellow men, as can only be the case in any reading of the biblical story, but a lover specifically of Jews, those who have the mark of covenant upon them, as does he also. This mark, the circumcision, becomes the fulcrum by which Jews are not allowed to enter Gehenna.

To this central point was added the query that this implies the total salvation of all Jews; but it is inconceivable that there are no Jews who have sinned to such a degree that they must enter Gehenna, and to that the midrash adds that indeed some enter. How can this be done – once we have determined that circumcised penis cannot enter Gehenna? There can only be one way: this great sinner of a Jew is uncircumcised.

That Abraham is the one who uncircumcises is simply a result of his being the one who in the main thrust of the midrash stops all other sinning Jews from entering Gehenna. And indeed, most importantly, in a number of other midrashim, an alternative tradition, which I suspect is more original, attributes this uncircumcising to
G-d himself or to G-d by means of an angel. It is inexcusable that this alternative tradition was not mentioned in the context of this essay.

The rhetorical portrait then of “Abraham as the Great (Un)Circumciser” is quite misleading.

2. There are no points of contact between the Bereshit Rabba midrash and the passage in Luke, other than the very minor fact that both use an image of Abraham appearing in a future reward/retribution context. I do begin to see what the author can possibly mean by stating “Whether or not Genesis Rabbah knows the story of Luke 16 …”, thereby implying there is some close similarity between these two texts.

3. The next statement by the author has even more problems: “it is clear that the author of this midrash does not place good works at the core of one’s religious identity, as it is in Luke, but circumcision” (let’s ignore
the continuation of this claim, with its own problems). This is simply not correct: let us remember that only those who sinned too much and thus CANNOT not enter Gehenna are uncircumcised: good and bad works are the crucial consideration and circumcision is the formal criteria.

The enigmatic parallel in Luke presents the classic (Jewish and Christian) understanding of future reward and punishment (ignoring for our purposes elements of predestination in early Christian thought), and focuses – strangely – upon the impossibility of any future changes in status after death; there can
be no repentance in Gehenna. The midrashic passage in Bereshit Rabba also has this understanding at its base, but it adds the classic rabbinic notion of G-d’s grace to the Jewish people (I purposefully use the Christian term here), and channels this notion through Abraham and the circumcision.

Chaim Milikowsky

Malka Simkovich

I very much appreciate Professor Milikowsky taking the time
to write such a thoughtful and erudite response to my article. That said, a few
clarifications are in order. Professor Milikowsky’s first point regards the
fact that other midrashic traditions, not mentioned in my essay, depict God or
an angel uncircumcising souls that are entering Gehenna. While this point is
undeniable, my article is not examining the motif of uncircumcision in midrash,
but considering how Abraham himself is depicted in early rabbinic and early
Christian literature, and associations with Abraham specifically. I agree that
the title of this piece may be misleading and in retrospect, the piece should
have had a different title. But the article’s content is explicitly concerning
the character of Abraham and the way in which early Christians and the rabbinic
authors depicted him. It is possible that the midrash in Bereishit Rabbah is
taking a popular tradition – that God or an angel uncircumcises souls destined
for Gehenna – and makes Abraham the uncircumciser instead, for reasons
addressed in this article.

Regarding Professor Milikowsky’s second point, that there
are “no points of contact between the Bereishit Rabba midrash and the passage
in Luke,” I agree – and noted in this
article – that the rabbis may not have been reading Luke and crafting a direct
rebuttal to its representation of Abraham. But my point is that there were
associations between Abraham and the afterlife that were “in the air” during
the early centuries CE, just as in modern times we have common cultural
associations that appear in all sorts of literature.

Finally, Professor Milikowsky takes issue with my statement
that “the author of this midrash does not place good works at the core of one’s
religious identity,” noting that it is the absence of good works that resulted
in the soul’s condemnation to hell. I wholeheartedly agree with his point; good works are important to this midrash. But in terms of what is at the
center of identity – that is, what makes the soul Jewish or Gentile – circumcision
here is the final determinant.

I offer my thanks again to Professor Milikowsky for taking
the time to comment on my piece. His comments elucidate its problematic title,
and highlight the arguments that should have been more clearly articulated.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the articles/divrei Torah on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of TABS.

TheTorah.com

A Historical and Contextual Approach TM

Mission

Project TABS (Torah And Biblical Scholarship) is an educational organization founded to energize the Jewish people by integrating the study of the Torah and other Jewish texts with the disciplines and findings of academic scholarship.